lgbtwikiaorg-20200222-history
Category talk:LGBT Wikipedians
I lol'd ... at the four paragraphs of "don't delete this plz!". – Steel 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Adding this to my watchlist, just in case :) -- Ned Scott 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC) :Well said: "The ''opposition to these descriptions, not the descriptions themselves, is what makes the categories and boxes divisive and disruptive.". --Coppertwig (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC) ::On second thought, it could be said better. I've edited it to ''"The ''opposition to these descriptions, not the descriptions themselves, is what causes division and disruption."'' --Coppertwig (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Fourth Paragraph "this category should not be nominated for deletion by itself. It will be seen as an attack on the part of the community" - To me this doesn't seem very civil and pre-assumes bad faith. Apart from anything else it encourages people to respond to a deletion discussion as if it was an attack, which surely is the worst possible way to go about things. Guest9999 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC) :Hm - that's a pretty good point. -- SatyrTN (talk / ) 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC) ::Nothing wrong at all with pre-assuming bad faith considering bad faith is what has gotten all the "gay" cats deleted in the first place each time. '-' ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC) :::The point, of course, is that is *past* - assuming a person attempting to delete this cat is doing so to hurt the community *in the future* is assuming bad faith. I say let's take out that fourth paragraph, or severely re-word it. -- SatyrTN (talk / ) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC) :Well, its true anyway. I wouldn't describe it as assuming bad faith, just presaging a reaction that might give others pause (as it would have given me, had I seen it before my own ill-fated nomination). And the reaction wouldn't be undeserved, either, as nominating a single category for deletion when many other similar categories exist appears as though you are singling out that one for special attention for some reason. Avruch T 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC) ::Do you think a similar notice should be put on every other category that divides users in a way that is not obviousy useful for colaboration (by race, nationality, religion, etc.)? Guest9999 (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC) :::Nope. Avruch T 01:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC) ::::Then why on this one? -- SatyrTN (talk / ) 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC) :::::For the same reason that this category has the other three paragraphs. It has a specific history that, in my mind, warrants the preamble. I don't think all categories that don't say "Interested in" have that same history or warrant the same preamble. Avruch T 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Also, you could put one on the contentious ones if you want - there are some, but not all, that warrant the prompt. I wouldn't just copy it over to all of them, and the reason I haven't done more than this one is that I just... haven't. This is the one I was involved in. Avruch T 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)